Between hopes and fears

“Immigration contributes to the economic results of Europe. Yet its potential will only be realized if we succeed in integrating immigrants and if we acknowledge people’s fears about clandestine immigration”, declared José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, summing up the complexity of the issue of immigration, to which the EU is trying to give coherent answers, sometimes with conflicting signs.Towards an EU strategy. In recent days the European Parliament has given the green light to the so-called “repatriation directive” on illegal immigration. Concurrently the Executive has adopted a communication with the title “A common immigration policy for Europe: principles, actions and instruments” and a “Strategic plan on asylum”: both have now begun their legislative process. At the same time, however, the EU recently adopted a strategy (so-called “Blue Card”) aimed at attracting skilled workers and “eggheads” to the old continent: European companies have been calling for the immigration of such highly qualified staff for a long time. “Europe is ageing and has a need for specialized workers, for engineers, but also for carers and building workers”, as Brussels has long underlined. Yet the provisions coming out of the EU institutions do not seem to be following any coherent pattern or linear course: first the EU establishes how to expel the “sans papier”, the clandestine immigrants who are often working illegally in the 27 member states of the EU; then it proceeds to define the ways in which new arrivals eligible for incorporation in Europe’s workforce should be treated.Ten common principles. On presenting the legislative package on immigration and asylum on 17 June, Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission, affirmed: “Immigration is an opportunity and a challenge for the Union. If managed in the right way, it is a source of richness not only from a material but also from a human point of view, bearing in mind the demographic decline in Europe”. The communication of the Commission enunciates ten principles as the foundation of the EU strategy: clear rules and conditions of parity; match between professional skills and economic requirements; integration; transparency, trust and cooperation; effective and coherent use of the available resources; partnerships with third countries; visa policy; integrated control of the frontiers; measures to curb illegal immigration; and effective repatriation policies. The European Council of 15 October 2008 will be called on to approve the two legislative texts, the one on immigration and the other on asylum (“whose objectives are to underline the Union’s humanitarian tradition in defence of civil rights and to create conditions of effective parity to accede to protection in the EU”). The overall aim is that both pieces of legislation should contribute in 2009 to the definition of a new five-year programme in the sector of justice, liberty and security. The directive on repatriation. For its part the European Parliament, during its plenary session in Strasbourg (16-19 June), discussed and definitively approved the repatriation directive. The report on it, presented by the German MEP Manfred Weber, obtained 369 votes in favour, 197 against and 106 abstentions. The directive establishes “common norms on the detention and repatriation of clandestine immigrants, and also promotes voluntary return”. It aims in the first place at the “voluntary repatriation” of those illegally present in the European Union. Otherwise the national authorities may proceed to a “period of custody” in temporary holding centres for a period no longer than 18 months to prepare for repatriation; the directive is applicable, albeit with specific safeguards, also to “unaccompanied minors”; moreover, the provisions of repatriation entail a ban on re-entry into the EU for a maximum period of five years. Monument to fortress-Europe? The directive is the result of a compromise between the EP and the European Council and will come into force in 2010. Opposed by numerous Church agencies and organizations of civil society, especially in the light of the long period of detention it envisages and its applicability to the under-age, the directive was adopted on its “first reading”. “If we were to have altered the content of the text – explains Weber – and if we had passed to a second parliamentary reading, we would have ended up with an even more repressive piece of legislation, as indeed various governments had asked”. “The directive – adds the German MEP – is a response to illegality and is the result of an altered political and cultural climate, as demonstrated also by some recent national elections. People want stricter laws – he explains – and we took steps in that direction”. Of quite a different view is the Italian MEP Giusto Catania, who led the front opposed to the directive. Catania accused the directive of “having been imposed by national governments that want to engross the 700 million euros provided by the repatriation fund, currently blocked”. This directive, he adds, “is yet another monument to fortress Europe”. He further points out that the European Parliament “has failed to listen to the 44 heads of state of third countries, the UNO, the Churches, trade-union organizations, numerous NGOs and Amnesty International that had all declared their opposition” to the text.